American Politics

Maybe the Florida state and local health officials who requested this out of dire need didn't dare tell their Trump Wannabe Repub governor about it for fear of bursting his "Always Winner Winner Chicken Dinner!" Repub delusion bubble.

[B]U.S. sends hundreds of ventilators to Florida as Covid surge continues.
As of Tuesday, 14,787 people were hospitalized, 145 percent more than during the state's previous peak in July 2020, a state hospital group said.[/B]
[URL]https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/u-s-government-sends-hundreds-ventilators-florida-covid-surge-continues-n1276515[/URL]
[QUOTE]Local and state health officials request equipment from the stockpile.

Gov. Ron DeSantis said he was unaware of the federal allocation when he was asked about it Tuesday by WPLG-TV of Miami, which first reported on the ventilators.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=ChrisP;2591130]I've obviously got better things to dos.[/QUOTE]No, you obviously don't.

[QUOTE=ChrisP;2591130]And yet for the AdmiralGeneral's 60th birthday, he threw a maskless party for 500 guests (and 200 servants) [/QUOTE]Full stop. 475 people were invited, but it was scaled back. 200 people actually attended. I have no idea where you got 200 servants, but why don't you enlighten us?

[QUOTE=ChrisP;2591130]No masks, no social distancing and no vaccine passes for the elites over whom the midwits on this board fawn from behind their masks, locked in their hovels like well-behaved little serfs, loving their masters.

Establishment fake news mouthpiece CNN excused the event, saying that the attendees were "sophisticated", therefore the restrictions they brutally enforce upon the rest of the population do not apply to them. [/QUOTE]You aren't forgetting something, are you?

The event was held outdoors. Outdoors makes all difference in the world. I never wore a mask outdoors, even at the height of the pandemic last year. I know many people do, but there is such a thing as overkill.

In addition, every guest was required to bring a negative test, and the event had a Covid coordinator who oversaw the protocol.

If I was hellbent on criticizing Obama, it would be for a feast in time of plague. Bad optics.

Trumpists and their fake outrages. More drama please.

[URL]https://www.washingtonian.com/2021/08/09/everything-we-know-about-barack-obama-60th-birthday-party-marthas-vineyard-covid/[/URL]

[QUOTE=Paulie97;2590855]That's a very timely post as I just read an article from a political scientist that hits on these points.

[URL]https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/two-party-system-broke-constitution/604213/[/URL][/QUOTE]Great article! Of course we all know it's but a wishful thinking. Too many forces, including both parties, are hellbent on maintaining the status quo.

[QUOTE=Xpartan;2591240]Great article! Of course we all know it's but a wishful thinking. Too many forces, including both parties, are hellbent on maintaining the status quo.[/QUOTE]That article was also written a year before Traitor Repub Trump's violent cop-attacking and killing anti-America Insurrection.

So not only was it full of silly and irrelevant "Bothsiderism" that will never hold again in light of where only one of the two party's methods led irrevocably to, there was no mention of the polar opposite legislative results between those 2 parties; the Repub Party's still favorite legislation being responsible for every major economic downturn, massive job destruction and none of the significant economic expansions and jobs creation of the past 100 years or so vs the Dem Party's legislation being responsible for every significant economic recovery, expansion and massive job creation and none of the major economic downturns and massive job losses of the past 100 years or so.

That is a huge difference between the 2 parties and I seriously doubt any 3rd, 4th or 5th party that comes along to win the WH or to control either house of Congress is going to match much less surpass the Dems' positive economic record in the foreseeable future of even our great grandchildren.

However, I do like the author's citing of the 2010 midterm election as a significant, telling election. But not exactly for the reason he stated. I have always said the 2010 midterm was the most important electon with the most disastrous long term outcome in my lifetime, including that of 2016 and 2020.

2010 was the election outcome that taught Repubs they could campaign on the most outrageous lies about everything and still win big even just 2 years after producing what was then one of the worst, job destroying, spectacular economic downturns of all time and then spending those 2 years doing everything possible to make it worse and absolutely nothing to aid the recovery as long as they were unified in repeating those outrageous lies over and over again.

It was very much what made the worlwide disaster known as Trump possible in 2016, what helped him come damn close to winning in the rigged EC system but for 43,000 votes sprinkled over a few EC battleground states in 2020 and will help them win and put in place another disaster sometime in the future, no doubt even worse than Trump.

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2590098]Anyone huh?

There are exceptions, but I expect a student or a senior to vote Democrat out of their financial interests. I expect a small business owner to vote Republican out of their financial interests.

What I call Democratic are guys here who make the argument that anyone who votes Republican is a second class, knuckle dragging specimen, and you Eih are clearly one of those guys.

It offends me that bashing Republicans has become so normal in your world that you bring it to a hooker board. I swear to God all you douches who were asked what is the first word that comes to mind when you hear the word Republican is stupid.

When you make a dumb comment like the one you made, anyone who calls themselves Republican is more of a problem than a solution, I shudder. You are defining all people in one group BY HOW THEY VOTE. WTF is wrong with you?

I have a prominent Republican friend who is a major donor. He has does more effing charity work in his life than you would do in ten of yours. He supports Republicans because that is the party that rules in his area, and he supports them because it is critical to his business.

He learned early on that if he went into court without having financially supported a judge, he would get screwed. Financing the campaign of Republican judges was necessary for his business, and his business employs hundreds of people. And he should vote Democrat because it benefits you? Or you think it is smart?

And when you make comments like you just did and Trump is Hitler, wouldn't you Democratic have a moral imperative to steal the election? All it took was 40,000 or so votes to be changed.

You cannot have it both ways. If Republicans are evil, then it was entirely moral to steal the election, yet you deny that it was even possible. Anyone suggesting it was possible, and it could have been done so easily, is a conspiracy believing nut job. Clearly, you have no respect for the opinion of people that are different than yours.

So as far as I am concerned, you can have this form while you all jack yourselves off. I have respect for people who vote Democrat. I have no respect for a bunch of arrogant Democratic who make the kind of comment you just did. So Democrats have always been right on everything and always will be? Yeesh. Again, WTF is wrong with you people?[/QUOTE]You make "difference of opinion" like we're discussing the best way to fold a fitted sheet. Or whether or not TP ought to hang from the fron or back of the roll.

WRONG!

The difference of opinion can be summed up in Trump's "inject disinfectant" press conference. Have you ever wondered who no (zip, zero, nada) Democrats showed up afterwards in ER's with bleach poisoning yet hundreds of Republicans did. This is part of the reason why the divide between Republicans and Democrats is more than a difference of opinion.

Democrats are no smarter than Republicans but Republicans, especially Trump supporters, believe in every cockamamie conspiracy theory floated on the internet. Ask a Trump supporter how forest fires start. He'll say "Jewish space lasers". Ask a Trump supporter if COVID vaccines will magnetize them and they'll say "Yes". Ask them what windmills cause and they will say "Cancer". Ask them how the election was stolen and they'll say "Chinese thermostats" or "Hugo Chavez" or some equally preposterous conspiracy theory.

The BS around the so called stolen election is the worst. Your contention that since Democrats thought Trump was evil and therefore they had a moral responsibility to "cook the election books" is ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as "Trump got more votes than Obama so he should have won".

And why aren't Republicans suggesting that there was voter fraud in Cleveland? Are they saying there was none? Because if there was and Republicans aren't investigating it, then the fraud BS is just that, BS. Because I'll guarantee that if a Democrat wins Ohio in 2024, Republicans will be investigating mysterious voter fraud in Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati and every other Ohio city with a large black population.

So no, this isn't a "fitted sheet folding" difference of opinion. This a "we don't believe in whacko stuff" vs "we believe in Fux news" difference of opinion.

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2590687]Jesus, I am not even going to respond to that. If we had your way, there would be one party rule like communist China. All good was done by Democrats and all bad by Republicans? It makes me wonder why you live in the USA when you so badly crave a one party oligarchy. Good and evil are in your mind defined by political party choices. Do you feel the same way about religion too?[/QUOTE]I have to give credit where credit is due, but then again, a broken clock is right twice a day.

I'm center to center left in my views, but a dichotomy of Democrat good / Republican evil is ludicrous. Wilson saw a recession, Truman saw one behind FDR in 1949, Ike wasn't the best, but was far from bad with great gains for blue collar workers. Johnson and Nixon are surely up for debate. Carter was an all out joke that was routed in his re-election attempt. Reagan brought about a lot of optimism in the 80's, and can't be fully blamed for subsequent failings as he had to deal with a Democratic Congress. I lived those years as a Reagan Dem and they were great.

Anyway we need a multi-party system, and any attempt to put a halo over one is ill-advised.

The census is about to set our politics on fire.

Get ready for a new round of "white replacement" tirades from Tucker Carlson.

The Washington Post reports that when the first demographic breakdowns from the 2020 census are officially unveiled later this week, they'll show that the number of white people in the country is shrinking. White people will still command a majority, but by thinning margins — making up less than 60 percent of the population, and composing less than half of the under-18 population. By 2045, it's expected that whites will lose their majority status altogether.

The news is likely to have terrible effects on our politics.

It's not a new observation that the dwindling power of white Americans has driven the anti-democratic radicalization of the Republican Party. Conservatives' recent fascination with Viktor Orbán's rule in Hungary can be explained, in part, by that country's ethnic homogeneity, as well as Orbán's fierce efforts to maintain it by crusading against immigrants from Asia and Africa. Donald Trump's rise was enabled by right-wing intellectuals who lamented that "the ceaseless importation of Third World foreigners" made the country "less traditionally American with every cycle. "

"Every time they import a new voter, I become disenfranchised as a current voter," Carlson grumbled on his Fox News show in April.

But immigration doesn't explain why the number of white people is getting smaller. One demographer told the Post the phenomenon has been accelerated both by the opioid epidemic and lower-than-expected birth rates among millennials following the Great Recession. The latter development, of course, has also sparked angry culture war posturing by Republican politicians.

To the extent that these developments are rooted in despair and economic hopelessness — and not, say, the predictable effects of affluence — Democrats and Republicans both should be prepared to offer solutions. (Democrats are already arguably doing their part, with tax credit payments to parents, and by driving the new infrastructure bill that should create a ton of new jobs for workers of all races.) If recent history tells us anything, though, it's that the census news will create a fresh wave of right-wing anger, and that much of it will be directed against America's minority populations. Our ugly politics are probably going to get uglier.

Watch out for the new Republican voting ploy: Only white, male, straight property owners will be able to vote.

[URL]https://theweek.com/politics/1003564/new-census-data-will-be-an-accelerant-for-the-culture-wars[/URL]

[QUOTE=Paulie97;2591612]I have to give credit where credit is due, but then again, a broken clock is right twice a day.

I'm center to center left in my views, but a dichotomy of Democrat good / Republican evil is ludicrous. Wilson saw a recession, Truman saw one behind FDR in 1949, Ike wasn't the best, but was far from bad with great gains for blue collar workers. Johnson and Nixon are surely up for debate. Carter was an all out joke that was routed in his re-election attempt. Reagan brought about a lot of optimism in the 80's, and can't be fully blamed for subsequent failings as he had to deal with a Democratic Congress. I lived those years as a Reagan Dem and they were great.

Anyway we need a multi-party system, and any attempt to put a halo over one is ill-advised.[/QUOTE]Wilson, whose presidency ended more than a century ago, saw a Recession as the result of our involvement in WWI and its costs. For Truman, it was immediately post WWII and its costs. Those Recessions were not the result of bad economic legislation, dumb economic ideas and decisions as is generally the case for Repubs' consistent economic failures. They were the price paid for our involvement in World Wars.

More often than Dems, Repubs will say something stupid and historically inaccurate like, "Everybody knows 'war' is good for the economy." Of course, they are wrong.

WWI triggered a big Recession. There was a Recession during WWII and another in the aftermath of it during Truman's presidency.

George W. Bush plunged us into 2 quagmire ground wars and a third war if you count his idiotic "War on Terror", yet his economy was crap and his wars did not mitigate his 2 Recessions one iota.

The USA was in a state of Recession for almost 30% of Eisenhower's entire presidency. We were IN one of his serial Recessions when JFK took office. His one meaningful jobs program was the development of the Interstate Highway system that wasn't even his idea nor did he lay out the plans for it or how to pay for it. That was FDR's doing. It was part of his New Deal economic recovery plan but he had to shelve it when Japan and Germany declared war on the USA and our economic attention was understandably diverted.

Eisenhower had to be talked into the project by Dems framing it as a "military/defense readiness" project, a means to quickly transport military equipment and troops, not as a boon to the general economy and jobs creation. Being a Repub, he was all about the former with practically zero interest in the latter.

Reagan inherited a fine and expanding economy from Carter, no Recession, in fact far from it, as has always been the case for outgoing Dems to incoming Repubs for the past 100 years or so but is almost never the case when the roles are reversed. Btw, Carter's average annual jobs creation record is right up there with the best in history on that count; LBJ and Clinton, with Obama not far behind. That is what Reagan inherited from Carter as well as very strong GDP Growth, month over month steadily declining unemployment and month over month steadily declining inflation.

Then the Dem Congress fast tracked Reagan's idiotic and consistently failed Repub Supply-Side/Trickle-Down economic agenda into the system and it produced the then worst economic downturn since the Great Repub Crash and Depression of the late 1920's/early 1930's.

Bonus points question for you historians: WHY did Reagan's Dem Congress fast-track his economic agenda into the system during his first year in office even though it was easy to predict it would probably be a disaster, as it indeed turned out to be? Lol. If no one can or is interested in answering that question, I will in another post.

Reagan's economy finally pulled out of his Great Repub Reagan Recession of 1982-1983 during his second term to achieve middling success, much better than his Great Recession at least, only because (D)Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neill, put the brakes on Reagan's spectacularly failed agenda and told him to cut that crap before he totally wiped out the USA economy.

By then even Reagan could not see a reason to prolong his Great Repub Reagan Recession, assuming his seriously and rapidly deteriorating mental condition allowed him to connect any dots at all.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2591844]Wilson, whose presidency ended more than a century ago, saw a Recession as the result of our involvement in WWI and its costs. For Truman, it was immediately post WWII and its costs. Those Recessions were not the result of bad economic legislation, dumb economic ideas and decisions as is generally the case for Repubs' consistent economic failures. They were the price paid for our involvement in World Wars.

More often than Dems, Repubs will say something stupid and historically inaccurate like, "Everybody knows 'war' is good for the economy." Of course, they are wrong.

WWI triggered a big Recession. There was a Recession during WWII and another in the aftermath of it during Truman's presidency.

George W. Bush plunged us into 2 quagmire ground wars and a third war if you count his idiotic "War on Terror", yet his economy was crap and his wars did not mitigate his 2 Recessions one iota.

The USA was in a state of Recession for almost 30% of Eisenhower's entire presidency. We were IN one of his serial Recessions when JFK took office. His one meaningful jobs program was the development of the Interstate Highway system that wasn't even his idea nor did he lay out the plans for it or how to pay for it. That was FDR's doing. It was part of his New Deal economic recovery plan but he had to shelve it when Japan and Germany declared war on the USA and our economic attention was understandably diverted. .[/QUOTE]You can desperately type out walls of text all you like, while certain facts remain unassailable. Wilson saw a recession, as did Truman behind FDR in 1949. The 50's and 80's were great eras in America, culturally, economically, you name it. There's also much more at stake than what party holds the WH or "presides" over a certain era. Congress holds the purse strings. Compromises are forced. Yours' is the same black and white thinking error that many on the far right have going. You are the left version of the same and an embarrassment. You present only two alternatives while the economic policies of the Republicans from WWI through the 60's were very different, though Trump brought back some of the protectionism. Ronnie was a good man with some blind spots on race, hardly surprising given when he was born and raised. Trump is a fraud and wannabe trying to ride his coat tails.

[URL]http://mail.yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white[/URL]

It's not all about party. I didn't reply to you in my PM box, as I'm on vacation, and you aren't on my short list of priorities. I know everyone can understand that. Lolol.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2591844]Wilson, whose presidency ended more than a century ago, saw a Recession as the result of our involvement in WWI and its costs. For Truman, it was immediately post WWII and its costs. Those Recessions were not the result of bad economic legislation, dumb economic ideas and decisions as is generally the case for Repubs' consistent economic failures. They were the price paid for our involvement in World Wars.

More often than Dems, Repubs will say something stupid and historically inaccurate like, "Everybody knows 'war' is good for the economy." Of course, they are wrong.

WWI triggered a big Recession. There was a Recession during WWII and another in the aftermath of it during Truman's presidency.

George W. Bush plunged us into 2 quagmire ground wars and a third war if you count his idiotic "War on Terror", yet his economy was crap and his wars did not mitigate his 2 Recessions one iota.

The USA was in a state of Recession for almost 30% of Eisenhower's entire presidency. We were IN one of his serial Recessions when JFK took office. His one meaningful jobs program was the development of the Interstate Highway system that wasn't even his idea nor did he lay out the plans for it or how to pay for it. That was FDR's doing. It was part of his New Deal economic recovery plan but he had to shelve it when Japan and Germany declared war on the USA and our economic attention was understandably diverted.

Eisenhower had to be talked into the project by Dems framing it as a "military/defense readiness" project, a means to quickly transport military equipment and troops, not as a boon to the general economy and jobs creation. Being a Repub, he was all about the former with practically zero interest in the latter.

Reagan inherited a fine and expanding economy from Carter, no Recession, in fact far from it, as has always been the case for outgoing Dems to incoming Repubs for the past 100 years or so but is almost never the case when the roles are reversed. Btw, Carter's average annual jobs creation record is right up there with the best in history on that count; LBJ and Clinton, with Obama not far behind. That is what Reagan inherited from Carter as well as very strong GDP Growth, month over month steadily declining unemployment and month over month steadily declining inflation.

Then the Dem Congress fast tracked Reagan's idiotic and consistently failed Repub Supply-Side/Trickle-Down economic agenda into the system and it produced the then worst economic downturn since the Great Repub Crash and Depression of the late 1920's/early 1930's.

Bonus points question for you historians: WHY did Reagan's Dem Congress fast-track his economic agenda into the system during his first year in office even though it was easy to predict it would probably be a disaster, as it indeed turned out to be? Lol. If no one can or is interested in answering that question, I will in another post. [/QUOTE]While Jimmy Carter was presiding over a strong and growing economy during his term, a persnickety issue existed (that was freaking out well heeled card-carrying Republicans) with elevated inflation. It was an issue, not a long-term problem (like Germany's post WWI inflation was).

Jimmy Carter hired the right man to address the issue and made Paul Volker the new Federal Reserve Chairman in August 1979. But this was going to take some time.

Prior to Volker's term, earlier Fed Chairmen's were "pegging the interest rate" working much like a surgeon with a small scalpel, making mini-moves that kept Market and Consumer Interest rates calm and low.

Instead of surgeon wielding a small scalpel, Volker worked more like a butcher with a cleaver in cutting growth to the Money Supply (M1, M2 and M3) and freaked out GOP businessmen that could not handle (even on a temporary basis) United States Prime interest rates of up to 21% and temporary mortgage rates as high as 18% in some regions of the country.

Paul Volker and Milton Freeman were right about the core of addressing inflation.

Now the real answer for the bonus points: Why did Reagan's Dem Congress fast-track his economic agenda?

Reagan's plan was mostly paid for with wildly increased federal debt and greatly reduced taxes. Super easy solution if you believe it can work.

[QUOTE=Paulie97;2591909]You can desperately type out walls of text all you like, while certain facts remain unassailable. Wilson saw a recession, as did Truman behind FDR in 1949. The 50's and 80's were great eras in America, culturally, economically, you name it. There's also much more at stake than what party holds the WH or "presides" over a certain era. Congress holds the purse strings. Compromises are forced. Yours' is the same black and white thinking error that many on the far right have going. You are the left version of the same and an embarrassment. You present only two alternatives while the economic policies of the Republicans from WWI through the 60's were very different, though Trump brought back some of the protectionism. Ronnie was a good man with some blind spots on race, hardly surprising given when he was born and raised. Trump is a fraud and wannabe trying to ride his coat tails.

[URL]http://mail.yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white[/URL]

It's not all about party. I didn't reply to you in my PM box, as I'm on vacation, and you aren't on my short list of priorities. I know everyone can understand that. Lolol.[/QUOTE]Lol. Another swing and a miss. I have never argued that there were "no recessions under Dems ever" and have pointed out the minor one under Truman several times even before you decided to start reading every word of my posts and struggle to refute some relatively insignificant detail. It produced a single month high unemployment rate of 7.9%, slightly higher than Carter's single month high of 7.8% in his mini, virtually 1 quarter purposely induced recession.

And I never characterized Eisenhower's serial Recessions, Nixon's Recession and Bush1's Recession as "Great Repub Recessions'. But they were bigger than the tiny, controlled one under Carter.

My point has always been about "major economic downturns" that produced at least the minimum characteristic of a Recession of 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth while pushing the unemployment rate demonstrably higher reflecting serious job losses.

On those criteria, there have been 4 Great Repub Recessions in the past 100 years: under Hoover, Reagan, Bush2 and Trump.

None under a Dem. Not even under Truman, despite his post-WWII expenditures on The Marshall Plan.

[QUOTE=ScatManDoo;2591928]
....
Now the real answer for the bonus points: Why did Reagan's Dem Congress fast-track his economic agenda?

Reagan's plan was mostly paid for with wildly increased federal debt and greatly reduced taxes. Super easy solution if you believe it can work.[/QUOTE]Well, of course that is the lie Reagan told about it as Repubs always lie that their disproportionately high tax cuts for the top margins Supply-Side/Trickle-Down idiocy will "pay for themselves from all the jobs created and revenue generated from it!"

And then that never happens.

Reagan's policies tripled the national debt, skyrocketed the deficit and stood there slack-jawed stupid useless while the worst economic downturn since the Great Repub Crash and Depression filled the void and marched along unabated.

The Dem Congress figured that would probably happen if Reagan got his Repub Supply-Side/Trickle-Down way. And they knew that "it will pay for itself!" bs was a lie. How could anyone not know that by then?

But they were cornered and helpless to deny him his fervent wish in his first year in office and offered virtually no pushback on it.

Why?

Because just a month after this admittedly wildly popularly elected president took office, he was shot in an attempted assassination by, say it with me folks, "a nut with a gun" who thought his doing so would impress a lesbian movie star enough to notice him.

After that it was really impossible to slam Reagan for his every lamebrain economic proposal and decision and call him out for his every incomprehensible answer and excuse without first slapping him on the back and declaring "what a great guy" he was.

They had no viable option but to let him have his way, let him shit all over the USA economy and the healthy expansion of it Carter handed him as early as he wished. Only after the American public could no longer tolerate an 11th, 12th or more consecutive month of 10%+ unemployment were the Dems able to finally push back and stop him before he caused irreversible damage to the economy without coming off as inconsiderate devils.

And god knows how bad the U-6 unemployment rate was during those Reagan years since mainstream media rarely if ever mentioned it then. They only became obsessed about that rate when Obama was recovering us from Bush2's Great Repub Recession.

Ronnie was a good man, and I underline the word man. Trump is a wannabe that tried riding his coat tails.

Believe it or not, I'd much rather the right bring us DeSantis. He's at least a man. He works out, is well educated, and reads, and never runs from a confrontation. That's a huge step in the right direction, so please bring it.

[QUOTE=Paulie97;2592078]Ronnie was a good man, and I underline the word man. Trump is a wannabe that tried riding his coat tails.

Believe it or not, I'd much rather the right bring us DeSantis. He's at least a man. He works out, is well educated, and reads, and never runs from a confrontation. That's a huge step in the right direction, so please bring it.[/QUOTE]The guy who has had more Floridians die of COVID than his 2018 margin of victory. That guy?

The guy who just yesterday admitted that his "bluster" about not paying school boards who defy his "no mask mandates allowed" policy was BS. That guy?

The guy who has no clue what he's going? That guy?

[QUOTE=PVMonger;2592216]The guy who has had more Floridians die of COVID than his 2018 margin of victory. That guy?[/QUOTE]The guy who had fewer Floridians die of COVID* that in either New York or California, both democrat states with brutal unconstitutional lockdowns. That guy.

P.S. It's not an "anti-mask mandate". Anyone who wishes to wear a mask is free to do so (not that cloth masks make any significant difference). It's called freedom. Not something that communists know much about.

*actually die with COVID and any number of other comorbidities.